AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along generational and architectural lines. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins every recorded head-to-head test, but the magnitude of those wins varies dramatically depending on the workload.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3080 posts a score of 152,423 against the FirePro W7000's 17,808. That is a 755.9% advantage, the single largest gap in the entire comparison. This is a compute-heavy workload that stresses raw FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver-level optimization for general-purpose GPU computing. The RTX 3080's Ampere architecture with 8,704 shading units and 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth simply overwhelms the older GCN 1.0 design.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably but remains decisive. The RTX 3080 scores 33,620 versus 22,001 for the FirePro W7000, a 52.8% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that reduces driver overhead, which helps the older AMD card close some of the gap. Still, the RTX 3080's hardware feature set, including dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, gives it a structural advantage that no software optimization on the FirePro side can fully offset.

The RTX 3080 also holds wins across the broader Passmark suite, though the FirePro W7000 lacks recorded scores in most of those tests. The RTX 3080's Passmark G3D score of 25,086 and GPU Compute score of 14,397 demonstrate strong DirectX and compute performance. The FirePro W7000's only recorded benchmarks are the two Geekbench tests, so the database shows a partial picture for the older card.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The RTX 3080 averages 23,172 across all recorded tests, while the FirePro W7000 averages 19,905. That is a 16.4% overall gap, which is substantial but far smaller than the OpenCL delta suggests. The reason is that the FirePro W7000's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, sit within 1.5% of its average score. The RTX 3080's nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA P106-100 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, are all within 0.4% of its average, meaning the RTX 3080 is clustered with other high-end parts rather than dominating its immediate peer group by a wide margin.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The RTX 3080 sits at the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W7000 sits at the 65th percentile. Both cards are above the median, but neither is near the top of the overall distribution. This suggests that the RTX 3080, despite its massive win over the FirePro W7000, is not the absolute fastest card in the database, just a strong performer in its class.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is the superior card in every measured category. The OpenCL result alone, with a 755.9% lead, settles any argument about raw compute capability. The Vulkan result, with a 52.8% lead, confirms that the advantage persists even in modern low-overhead APIs.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the RTX 3080 is the obvious pick. Its 29.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 10 GB of GDDR6X memory, and 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth are in a completely different class from the FirePro W7000's 2.432 TFLOPS and 153.6 GB/s. The RTX 3080 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W7000 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The FirePro W7000 does have one clear physical advantage: it is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP, compared to the RTX 3080's dual-slot design and 320 W TDP. For systems with strict space or power constraints, the FirePro W7000 fits where the RTX 3080 cannot. Its four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also support multi-display setups, though the RTX 3080 counters with HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The launch MSRP of the RTX 3080 was 699 USD, while the FirePro W7000 launched at 899 USD. That launch pricing is notable: the newer card was cheaper at launch despite being dramatically faster. The FirePro W7000's higher launch price reflected its professional workstation positioning, not its compute advantage.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a current-generation purchase. But for anyone comparing used or legacy hardware, the RTX 3080 is the clear performance winner. The FirePro W7000 only makes sense for niche use cases where its single-slot form factor, lower power draw, or DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are essential.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two overlapping tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Both favor the RTX 3080, but the margins tell very different stories.

The OpenCL test is the headline result. The RTX 3080 scores 152,423, and the FirePro W7000 scores 17,808. The 755.9% delta means the RTX 3080 is roughly 8.5 times faster in this workload. This is not a close contest by any measure. The RTX 3080's 8 nm Samsung process, 28,300 million transistors, and 45.1M transistors per mm² density give it a massive hardware advantage. The FirePro W7000, built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 2,800 million transistors, is a generation and a half behind in manufacturing technology.

The Vulkan test is more competitive but still one-sided. The RTX 3080 scores 33,620, and the FirePro W7000 scores 22,001. The 52.8% delta is significant but not overwhelming. Vulkan's lower overhead helps the FirePro W7000, which has fewer shading units (1,280 versus 8,704) and less memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 760.3 GB/s). The RTX 3080 still wins because its raw hardware resources are so much larger, but the gap narrows to a level where the FirePro W7000's efficiency per watt becomes more relevant.

The RTX 3080's Passmark scores provide additional context, though the FirePro W7000 has no corresponding results. The RTX 3080's Passmark G3D score of 25,086 and GPU Compute score of 14,397 align with its strong Geekbench results. The DirectX 9 score of 258, DirectX 10 score of 170, and DirectX 11 score of 207 show consistent performance across legacy APIs. The DirectX 12 score of 100 is notably lower, likely reflecting the specific workload characteristics of that test rather than a hardware limitation.

The FirePro W7000's absence from the Passmark suite means the database cannot directly compare the two cards in DirectX workloads. The available data is limited to the two Geekbench tests, which favor the RTX 3080 overwhelmingly in one case and strongly in the other.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3080 in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The RTX 3080 scores 152,423 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 17,808 for the FirePro W7000, a 755.9% advantage.

Q: Does the FirePro W7000 win any benchmark?

A: No. The FirePro W7000 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data. The RTX 3080 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX 3080 has 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus with 760.3 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan applications?

A: The RTX 3080 leads in Geekbench Vulkan with 33,620 points versus 22,001 for the FirePro W7000, a 52.8% margin.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX 3080 has a 320 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested PSU with a 12-pin connector. The FirePro W7000 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU with a 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RTX 3080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of GPU design. The RTX 3080 uses NVIDIA's GA102 chip built on Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The FirePro W7000 uses AMD's Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm².

The core configurations differ by an order of magnitude. The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, features that did not exist when the FirePro W7000 launched. The FirePro W7000 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor core support.

Compute throughput reflects these differences. The RTX 3080 delivers 29.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 29.77 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. The FirePro W7000 delivers 2.432 TFLOPS of FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. The RTX 3080's pixel rate is 164.2 GPixel/s and texture rate is 465.1 GTexel/s, compared to 30.40 GPixel/s and 76.00 GTexel/s for the FirePro W7000.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RTX 3080 uses 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit interface, with memory clocked at 1188 MHz and 19 Gbps effective, producing 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W7000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface, with memory clocked at 1200 MHz and 4.8 Gbps effective, producing 153.6 GB/s. The RTX 3080 has more than four times the memory bandwidth.

The cards also differ in physical design. The RTX 3080 is a dual-slot card measuring 285 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The FirePro W7000 is a single-slot card measuring 242 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no recorded width. The RTX 3080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the FirePro W7000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs reflect their respective target markets. The RTX 3080 offers one HDMI 2.1 port and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The FirePro W7000 offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The RTX 3080's HDMI 2.1 support is a notable advantage for modern consumer displays, while the FirePro W7000's four DisplayPort outputs suit multi-monitor professional setups.

Both cards are end-of-life products. The RTX 3080 was released on 2020-08-31, succeeding the GeForce 20 series and preceding the GeForce 40 series. The FirePro W7000 was released on 2012-06-12, succeeding the FirePro Terascale series and preceding the Radeon Pro Polaris series. The eight-year gap between their release dates explains most of the architectural and performance differences recorded in the database.